Compare two components

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the exact primitive types compared and explicitly stating that identity (GUIDs, unique ids) is never treated as a difference, which helps the agent predict output behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two focused sentences: the first identifies the operation and overall outcome, and the second elaborates on the detailed comparison scope. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a fairly complex comparison tool with no output schema, the description provides a thorough account of what will be compared and returned, covering both footprint primitives and symbol elements. Combined with fully documented input parameters and safety annotations, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all six parameters including tolerance, file paths, component names, and include_geometry. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it does not need to because the schema already carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Compare'), a resource ('two specific components'), and a precise scope ('differences in primitives, parameters, and properties'). It also indicates that components can come from the same or different libraries, making its purpose distinct from library-level comparison tools like diff_libraries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance about when to choose it over alternatives such as diff_libraries or get_component. It does not mention exclusions or conditions like 'use diff_libraries for library-level comparisons', so an agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.